Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 16:49, David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> wrote: > I have several reactions and want to pull them out of the "WTF" thread > for more constructive conversation about what to do next. > > (1) IANAL, but in reviewing both GPL and Artistic, I think they are in > violation of the license. Artistic is specific that they can't call > the binary "perl" if it is non-standard. GPL is specific that > modified copies must carry "prominent notices" of the change. To be > "standard" (Artistic) or "unmodified" (GPL) one must distribute > "verbatim" copies (source or binary) -- and removing standard > libraries is not verbatim. If that's true they could easily mitigate this by choosing to only distribute under the GPL (Perl is dual-licensed, you can pick only one license and go with that), and they could just add those prominent noticed to be in compliance. Thus I don't think starting some ugly legal process that could trivially end with an hour's work on their part to add notices & carry on with what they've been doing is the right way to go.Thread Previous | Thread Next